Thread: FanDuel refuses to payout $82,000 to man for Broncos win after technical error

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. -- The Broncos win over the Oakland Raiders on Sunday nearly made a New Jersey man $82,000.

When Anthony Prince made his bet was handed a ticket at incredible 750-1 odds with about a minute left in the game. FanDuel says that it was an error and the net payout should've been $18.35.

When Brandon McManus kicked the game winning field goal with 6 seconds left, he went to the counter and was told that the bet would not be paid out at the erroneous odds.

rest - https://kdvr.com/2018/09/19/fanduel-...chnical-error/

Lol at that guy hiring an attorney. He knew that was an erroneous ticket when he tried to cash it. I mean, I would have tried to cash it too, but in not going to sue when they say no.

I am in favor of attorneys being hired.

Originally Posted by King87

I am in favor of attorneys being hired.

I mean go for it if guess, but it would be ridiculous if he expects them to pay out that bet. That would be like if you took your check to the bank and the teller accidentally added a few zeroes to it and you expected the bank to honor it.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I mean go for it if guess, but it would be ridiculous if he expects them to pay out that bet. That would be like if you took your check to the bank and the teller accidentally added a few zeroes to it and you expected the bank to honor it.

I'm not saying this is wrong - but the fact that their system did this and it's not pure human error makes the case 'stronger' in some sense. That's my GUT feeling. I cite to no authority to it. But, the fact that they screwed the poach and unilaterally told him to kick rocks is NOT a good thing for their position, either in this case or just in general.

But I do suspect the result you expect is what will occur.

Originally Posted by King87

I'm not saying this is wrong - but the fact that their system did this and it's not pure human error makes the case 'stronger' in some sense. That's my GUT feeling. I cite to no authority to it. But, the fact that they screwed the poach and unilaterally told him to kick rocks is NOT a good thing for their position, either in this case or just in general.

But I do suspect the result you expect is what will occur.

I read up on this a bit. Apparently it's common practice for casinos not to honor winning bets if the ticket was printed in error.

Also, they didn't totally tell him to screw off. They still paid based on the actual odds and offered him 500 extra bucks and Giants tickets.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I read up on this a bit. Apparently it's common practice for casinos not to honor winning bets if the ticket was printed in error.

That is true - but this was a systemic error, no? All I'm saying is that my gut tells me there's a case to be had here. Will it win? I have no clue, but I suspect not, so maybe that's my clue. Wave, I'm going to talk to a professor about this and see what he thinks. This will make for an enjoyable conversation with my favorite professor.

Originally Posted by King87

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I read up on this a bit. Apparently it's common practice for casinos not to honor winning bets if the ticket was printed in error.

That is true - but this was a systemic error, no? All I'm saying is that my gut tells me there's a case to be had here. Will it win? I have no clue, but I suspect not, so maybe that's my clue. Wave, I'm going to talk to a professor about this and see what he thinks. This will make for an enjoyable conversation with my favorite professor.

what was the verdict? Hahaha lawyer puns

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I mean go for it if guess, but it would be ridiculous if he expects them to pay out that bet. That would be like if you took your check to the bank and the teller accidentally added a few zeroes to it and you expected the bank to honor it.

Actually you're pretty much wrong there. In fact, the reason you couldn't cash that $1,000,000 check is because you had actual knowledge of what it was supposed to be. You knew the check wasn't supposed to be for $1,000,000.

But, checks are actually negotiable instruments and under negotiable instrument law, a check that is negotiated to a holder in due course is honored at the face value of the instrument. So, if the holder sold it to an innocent party for value and the purchaser was unaware of any actual fraud, the maker (signer) of the instrument would have to pay the face value - free of any claims or defenses he might have against the original holder - including fraud, mistake or other defenses.

That happens all the time btw. That's one reason why some notes often have restrictive endorsements on them preventing such transfers without the maker's consent.

If you reasonably knew or should have known the teller was making a blunder you couldn't enforce the instrument. So your analogy is wrong.

That guy who bought the ticket is probably going to lose his case, because he probably was aware of the actual odds, so they have defenses against him - his attempt to cash the ticket was fraudulent. They can argue that they don't have to honor the ticket that was due to a technical glitch - even though on the site it states that they will pay out according to the odds they issue when he buys the ticket.

But, that's not 100% clear, so chances are they are going to have to pay him something a lot more than $500 and a few tickets. Probably not $80,000 though.

Would it matter if he suspected the odds were wrong, but did not know what the proper odds were at the time? Or, what if the glitch was in totality, and every source he had to that site's odds on the game stated the same thing?

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id...0-disputed-bet

He was paid. They talked to state gambling regulators and it didn't look favorable to them.

That's stunning to me. The casino probably would have won had they fought it. Guess they figured the payout would be cheaper than the PR hit.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

That's stunning to me. The casino probably would have won had they fought it. Guess they figured the payout would be cheaper than the PR hit.

If they talked to the regulators, and that's what made the decision happen, they were either on the hook for all of it, or so much of it that the PR hit and the chunk of cash wasn't worth it. I'd be interested to see what the regulations are.